Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 130 Cal. 666 - Nicoll v. Weldon

Nicoll v. Weldon’s Empirical Analysis

1900

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
4
states following
February 1969
most recently cited

48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently February 1969 · most notably Waybright v. Anderson (1927), 35 Cal. App. 2d 685 - Stub v. Harrison (1939)

48 state decisions

1101900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Melde v. Reynolds · Buell v. Emerich

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The granting or denying a motion to set aside the default of a defendant is so largely a matter of discretion with the trial court that, unless it is clearly made to appear that there has been an abuse of this discretion, this court declines to set aside its order. Especially are we indisposed to review its action when it has set aside the default, and it does not appear that the plaintiff has sustained any prejudice thereby. This discretion of the court is best exercised when it tends to bring about a judgment upon the merits of the controversy between the parties. Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a remedial provision, and is to be liberally construed so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits, and to give to the party claiming in good faith to have a substantial defense to the action an opportunity to present it. (Buell v. Emerich, 85 Cal. 116 [ 24 Pac. 644 ] ; Harbaugh v. Honey Lake etc. Water Co., 109 Cal. 70 [ 41 Pac. 792 ]; Melde v. Reynolds, 129 Cal. 308 [ 61 Pac. 932 ].) It is for this reason that we more readily listen to an appeal from an order refusing to set aside a default, than where the motion has been granted, since in such case the defendant may be deprived of a substantial right, whereas it may be assumed, if nothing to the contrary is shown, that the plaintiff will be able at any time to establish his cause of action. If, for any reason, he will be unable to do so, that fact should be made to appear; but if he is merely subjected ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.